News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Is there a reason everyone stopped discussing the option of Co-CEOs? I've had my money on a Walden/D'Amaro announcement for years now.

Dana is a very strong leader and a very close personal friend of Igers. But Wall Street does not believe in the content business and signaling her as the future of the company is a mistake (i.e. look to Chapek).

D'Amaro is affable and charismatic, and has a steady hand on the wheel of the business that actually makes the company money (putting everyone's personal opinions aside here). But lacks some of the leadership chops Dana has and the industry relationships that she has fostered (ala Iger).

I still see a world where they explore the pairing. I think the company would like to lean towards Dana, and like D'Amaro but think he's a bit green. But they each have what the other lacks.

It almost feels like they’d have to do a dual CEO position if they choose either of them, Josh has 0 film/tv experience, Dana has 0 parks/resorts/cruise experience. Both are very well suited to run their side of the company but both are also completely inexperienced on how to run the other side of the company.

Without knowing their management styles it’s hard to know if either could work, if they are able to delegate away the roles they aren’t experienced in they could both be fantastic, if they try to micromanage the roles they aren’t experienced with they could both be disasters. Disney is such a broad company you almost need specialists to run each division and a good overall, hands off, manager to manage them.

 

[MR.Dis]

Walt was never a park executive… my train of thought again is not putting Josh on top, but maintaining him in his role.

Again, I’m looking for an executive who is willing to push for their portfolio as being something that can be improved through ongoing major capital investment. Instead of being strategically planned and squeezed into the ground to appease their boss.

It’s about having a person in place who both seemingly likes their product (Chapek did) and sees the value of ongoing intensive capital expansion (Chapek didn’t) and understands what the general public actually wants. I’m not even convinced the other park execs ever liked the parks more than they did strategic planning. Many of them had outright disdain for experiences, which I don’t think Josh has demonstrated. A shockingly rare, modern feature.

Though a sad number of members thought Jay Rasulo should be CEO, so I’m not surprised I’m facing this much push back for what should be a fairly nothing comment.

I guess the humor went over your head, that's ok. I do enjoy when you get on your high horse, it makes for enjoyable reading and conversations.

 

[CosmicDuck]

It almost feels like they’d have to do a dual CEO position if they choose either of them, Josh has 0 film/tv experience, Dana has 0 parks/resorts/cruise experience. Both are very well suited to run their side of the company but both are also completely inexperienced on how to run the other side of the company.

Without knowing their management styles it’s hard to know if either could work, if they are able to delegate away the roles they aren’t experienced in they could both be fantastic, if they try to micromanage the roles they aren’t experienced with they could both be disasters. Disney is such a broad company you almost need specialists to run each division and a good overall, hands off, manager to manage them.

I feel like when Iger first came back there was a period in which he was at events with both Dana and Josh, events that you wouldn't normally expect one or both of them to be at. Like Josh was with them at like the Emmys or Oscars? And then Dana was in Paris at the parks with the two of them. That's when I started to realize the play might be both of them, when the pundits were still saying Mark Parker was the leading choice.

What's odd is you'd expect to see more of that now, more shuffling of one or both of them across divisions so they can get a taste. You saw that with Chapek, it's pretty part and parcel with CEO roles that hire internally. But I suppose they could be worried about the optics of that since this has become such a high profile subject.

It's interesting because they're in such a pickle. Normally they could announce "Hey Dana or Josh are the picks, they will start in 2027 when Iger's contract ends" And then that gives them two full years of touring the company and learning everything they need to, as well as finding THEIR successors at their division which is almost as important a job. But the problem is they can't do that, because the narrative is "Iger will die before giving up the throne". And the media will paint so many Chapek 2.0 stories for years, and every squabble will become bloomberg headlines in the leadup. Every flub and mistep scrutinized.

And likewise they can't afford to quietly pick a successor, because nobody within the company has the requisite experience anymore (all the best suitors left!).

 

[Disstevefan1]

I’ll go 5 (2029). I’m pretty happy to stick him to that timeline minus two of the cruise ships which I have strong faith cannot be walked back contractually without major penalties.

Time will tell. Let’s see where they are in 2029.

I have lost faith.

I hope I am wrong.

 

[Tha Realest]

I feel like when Iger first came back there was a period in which he was at events with both Dana and Josh, events that you wouldn't normally expect one or both of them to be at. Like Josh was with them at like the Emmys or Oscars? And then Dana was in Paris at the parks with the two of them. That's when I started to realize the play might be both of them, when the pundits were still saying Mark Parker was the leading choice.

What's odd is you'd expect to see more of that now, more shuffling of one or both of them across divisions so they can get a taste. You saw that with Chapek, it's pretty part and parcel with CEO roles that hire internally. But I suppose they could be worried about the optics of that since this has become such a high profile subject.

It's interesting because they're in such a pickle. Normally they could announce "Hey Dana or Josh are the picks, they will start in 2027 when Iger's contract ends" And then that gives them two full years of touring the company and learning everything they need to, as well as finding THEIR successors at their division which is almost as important a job. But the problem is they can't do that, because the narrative is "Iger will die before giving up the throne". And the media will paint so many Chapek 2.0 stories for years, and every squabble will become bloomberg headlines in the leadup. Every flub and mistep scrutinized.

And likewise they can't afford to quietly pick a successor, because nobody within the company has the requisite experience anymore (all the best suitors left!).

I do find the Adam Silver talk fascinating. I don’t see that going anywhere though.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Disney to Cut Staff Amid Review of Corporate Cost-Structure

A rep says, "As part of this ongoing optimization work, we have been reviewing the cost structure for our corporate-level functions."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

"Amid a long summer season of cost-cutting and budget trimming in Hollywood, Disney has made a new round of cuts within its corporate structure impacting staffers.

“We continually evaluate ways to invest in our businesses and more effectively manage our resources and costs to fuel the state-of-the-art creativity and innovation that consumers value and expect from Disney,” a rep for the company stated. “As part of this ongoing optimization work, we have been reviewing the cost structure for our corporate-level functions and have determined there are ways for them to operate more efficiently.”

 

[GimpYancIent]

Disney to Cut Staff Amid Review of Corporate Cost-Structure

A rep says, "As part of this ongoing optimization work, we have been reviewing the cost structure for our corporate-level functions."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

"Amid a long summer season of cost-cutting and budget trimming in Hollywood, Disney has made a new round of cuts within its corporate structure impacting staffers.

“We continually evaluate ways to invest in our businesses and more effectively manage our resources and costs to fuel the state-of-the-art creativity and innovation that consumers value and expect from Disney,” a rep for the company stated. “As part of this ongoing optimization work, we have been reviewing the cost structure for our corporate-level functions and have determined there are ways for them to operate more efficiently.”

Cut staff? How about cut executives? More cost savings will be achieved that way than reductions in staff, who actually do the work, are the face of the company and directly impact the customers.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Cut staff? How about cut executives? More cost savings will be achieved that way than reductions in staff, who actually do the work, are the face of the company and directly impact the customers.

The article clearly states "corporate level."

 

[MR.Dis]

Cut staff? How about cut executives? More cost savings will be achieved that way than reductions in staff, who actually do the work, are the face of the company and directly impact the customers.

So spot on in Corporate America. I worked in the Banking Industry for 50 years, every time there were layoffs it was the grunts who were let go. Never in my 50 years did I ever see a VP or major Senior Manager get laid off, they were just re shuffled.

 

[Ayla]

So spot on in Corporate America. I worked in the Banking Industry for 50 years, every time there were layoffs it was the grunts who were let go. Never in my 50 years did I ever see a VP or major Senior Manager get laid off, they were just re shuffled.

It helps immensely to read an article before commenting on it.

 

[MR.Dis]

It helps immensely to read an article before commenting on it.

I was commenting on the post, not the article

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Excuse me where are the posts


Shouldn't we be updating the thread since the stock is up is the 90s again? Sitting at 92.78 right now?

Is this a serious question?

 

[Lilofan]

So spot on in Corporate America. I worked in the Banking Industry for 50 years, every time there were layoffs it was the grunts who were let go. Never in my 50 years did I ever see a VP or major Senior Manager get laid off, they were just re shuffled.

Did you ever work on Wall Street? Execs are laid off including Senior Execs.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I was commenting on the post, not the article

The post you're commenting on didn't seem to read the article, either.

 

[Indy_UK]

My fear with Josh in charge would actually be that I think he would listen too much to what the vloggers and people on forums like this want in the parks and that’s isn’t always a good thing

 

[DisneyHead123]

My fear with Josh in charge would actually be that I think he would listen too much to what the vloggers and people on forums like this want in the parks and that’s isn’t always a good thing

I feel like Disney and many companies have already come to the realization that “the internet is not real life.” I’m guessing they have plenty of other mechanisms to collect customer feedback, both direct (surveys) and indirect (things like merch sales.)

 

[MR.Dis]

Did you ever work on Wall Street? Execs are laid off including Senior Execs.

As I said, I worked in banking for 50 years--never on Wall Street. As I stated, in 50 years NOT once was a VP or Senior Manager ever laid off- Period. Now I am sure some one some where that was a senior manager/ VP has been laid off----- just not in any company I worked for. So why the attack on such an innocent post??? Lot more weird posts to go after than one persons personal observation. Any one who has read my posts knows I worked as a mortgage underwriter. During the Mortgage Meltdown starting in 2008 thru 2017, I was personally laid off 9 times! I actually had to move temporary out of state to find a job, leaving my wife and kids so I could send them money to pay the mortgage. Not a happy time. In the end, I ended up my last 11 years with a big bank that was the best environment I ever worked.

 

[Lilofan]

As I said, I worked in banking for 50 years--never on Wall Street. As I stated, in 50 years NOT once was a VP or Senior Manager ever laid off- Period. Now I am sure some one some where that was a senior manager/ VP has been laid off----- just not in any company I worked for. So why the attack on such an innocent post??? Lot more weird posts to go after than one persons personal observation. Any one who has read my posts knows I worked as a mortgage underwriter. During the Mortgage Meltdown starting in 2017 thru 2020, I was personally laid off 9 times! I actually had to move temporary out of state to find a job, leaving my wife and kids so I could send them money to pay the mortgage. Not a happy time. In the end, I ended up my last 11 years with a big bank that was the best environment I ever worked.

Just merely pointing out in banking ( ie Wall Street ) there are layoffs to include senior execs.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I mean, if the point of layoffs is to trim down, save money, cut redundancies, etc. Laying off at the exec level doesn't make much sense, unless you are fully removing the team below them... or merging teams.

It's less likely to see execs in a reported mass lay off. You are more likely to see an exec announced as stepping down or leaving, separately.

Execs can and have been laid off, but usually to be replaced with someone else.

 

[Lilofan]

I mean, if the point of layoffs is to trim down, save money, cut redundancies, etc. Laying off at the exec level doesn't make much sense, unless you are fully removing the team below them... or merging teams.

It's less likely to see execs in a reported mass lay off. You are more likely to see an exec announced as stepping down or leaving, separately.

Execs can and have been laid off, but usually to be replaced with someone else.

During the brutal layoffs nationwide in spring summer 2009, Disney had their share of layoffs including execs.